The speed of human evolution. . . . . .

[Bob Keeter]

Got to thinking. . . dangerous thing right, Philip? How's that
killfile functioning now. Better than your hairbrained
theories of Deitiker superiority, or do I get another response
from you! ;-) Sorry folks, just checking. I really would not
want to fall from that noble place of honor by accident!

Now for the real post. . . . . . . . .

Today a group of people from Fiji can get the necessary dose
of Vitimin D by going to the grocery store, even if that store
is in Point Barrow. Similarly that gang of oil drillers from
Point Barrow can get plenty of sunblock when vacationing in
Hawaii. IOW modern technology has replaced the need for
genetic adaptation to the environemnt. This is not to say that
the Point Barrow group would not or could not gradually evolve
darker skin to combat skin cancers if shipwrecked in Fiji for
a few thousand years. . . . . Or that the Fijians would not
develop lighter skin after a few hundred generations in the
arctic. . . . It just seems that there is not the same
Darwinian pressure that would have been there 10,000, or more
significantly in this train of thought, 15-20,000 years ago.

If in fact the pre-columbian Americans were recent imports
from north eastern Eurasia, they quite possibly started out
with quite light skin color. Immediately upon crossing
Berengia this would also have been a beneficial skin color.
BUT if they began a flat out sprint for Tierra del Fuego (as
some would suggest) it would not seem to me that the skin
color issue could have kept up with them. Today if you compare
the skin color of for example the Aleuts with the Apache or
the Navaho, or even the native inhabitants of the Amazon
basin, I would SUSPECT that the more equatorial groups would
consistently be darker colored.

Anyway the basic drift. How slow would a group need to move
through the range of climates between the "mammoth steppes"
of Berengia and the deserts of the Southwest and mexico in
order for a biological "darker skin" adaptation to occur (not
just a sun tan but a geneticly based darker skin).
Conversely, how fast would a group of light skinned
arctic-adapted group need to pass through these areas to
avoid catastropic devastation by skin cancers, etc. on their
way to the cooler climates in Argentina and the Andes. In
either case, it would seem that the variations in the skin
coloration of the native americans has only had a very
limited time to evolve. How does that play with the nominal
"evolutionary rate" assumed for ancient humans?

Now for the "macro part" of the question. . . . with the
"conveniences" of modern society, where are the evolutionary
pressures pushing the human race? What is the selection
criteria? How does "selection" occur? Do we as a species
evolve towards an immunity to carpal tunnel syndrome, a good
jump shot, laser quick reactions and an equally nimble "firing
finger" for the nintendo? Where are we headed? Was HG Wells
concept of the Eloi (sp) prophetic or we become troglodytes in
concrete caves!

Is that sufficiently "Meta" for you there philip? Thought so!

Regards bk

[Curtadams]

rkeeter@earthlink.net writes:

>Now for the "macro part" of the question. . . . with the
>"conveniences" of modern society, where are the evolutionary
>pressures pushing the human race? What is the selection
>criteria? How does "selection" occur?

Since we all pretty much survive, selection is for increased
fertility. We're currently selecting to want children, to
dislike or have difficulties with birth control, to become
fertile earlier and remain fertile later, and to avoid
things that reduce fertility like education. We're also
selecting for vertically transmitted cultural traits
(notably religion) which encourage large families, along
with any genetic traits which make possessors more
susceptible to them. Insofar as any such traits have genetic
bases - and almost everything is partially genetic - we are
currently selecting for them quite strongly.

Curt Adams (curtadams@aol.com) "It is better to be wrong than
to be vague" - Freeman Dyson

[Philip Dei]

On 23 May 2002 02:36:45 GMT, curtadams@aol.com
(CurtAdams) wrote:

>rkeeter@earthlink.net writes:
>
>>Now for the "macro part" of the question. . . . with the
>>"conveniences" of modern society, where are the evolutionary
>>pressures pushing the human race? What is the selection
>>criteria? How does "selection" occur?
>
>Since we all pretty much survive, selection is for increased
>fertility. We're currently selecting to want children, to
>dislike or have difficulties with birth control, to become
>fertile earlier and remain fertile later, and to avoid things
>that reduce fertility like education.

Raising kids in modern society is expensive and debilitating.
The modality of selection is financial in a way, can you
afford to have a wife willing to spend at least a few hours
(or she you) at home raising 2 or more offsping. Carreer
oriented people cannot, males frequently wait later, they can
afford to but females cannot. In crowded Japan males are now
marrying in the 35 to 40 yo range to wives in the 28-30 year
old range because of the financial limitations of both trying
to own a home and raise kids. This is how the population is
undercontrol. People who have kids willy-nilly expose
themselves to all kinds of risk, no medical care, poor job,
bad nutrition, no spousal support, kids who are potentially
violent or delinquents, because culture of life in urban
invironment in post-industrialized society does not have roles
for adolescences that transit them into the workforce. 200
years ago people had kids as a means of generating farm
workers for themselves, and social security in their old age.
Today offspring are a liability until after you've forked over
the 200,000$ required to put them through college and there is
no familial social security. They leave home and never come
back, and the worst thing is they blow their mind in the third
and half year of college, come back hoem to roost and never
leave. Thus there is alot of relative rish to having kids and
not much tangible reward other than a parasite the takes off
after it finishes its meal and carries half of your genes.
Thus society is shifting from colonial type setting to a
setting of solitary animal in the rearing of its offspring.
From the setting of the village with various generations
raising the kids to a society where perverts on the internet
raise your kids, and once they are done you never see them
again until their dot.com crashes or the police drag them to
your doorstep with a bolt through their nose and body tattoos
covering every imaginable portion of their body. Wanna
increase your genetic fitness, go down to central america and
grab a 15 year old, bring her back to the US and put yourself
out on a farm where you've paid the taxes off. Work your ass
off providing food to the woman and she'll produce five or six
kids each of whom you quickly teach how to do chores and
homeschool thems so they cannot see what the other kids are
doing. Once they get to 15 start putting the out to do odd
jobs for people so that they can earn a half days pay while in
school to earn their college tuition. There is alot of work
avaible in most places cause of the free trade thing. Don't
worry about health care, except for Guahalora (your very
native wife who can fix a meal out of the stuff most americans
throw away) whom you want to keep those vitamins going so that
she'll keep making babies until she drops. If you loose a kid,
she can replace it in nine months. Keep a few of the more
robust kids at home to take care of the farm and when they
become adults go over to the congo and . . . . . . Oh and you
need to keep her outdoor working with you, cause that back
breaking work also vascularizes the uterine muscles making it
easier for her to give birth without the help of hospitals, if
your good she can pop the out on the side of a tree and go
back to work in a few hours saving you those hospitalization
fees. And if she dies, she's always got 1 or 2 sisters. Let me
ask you a question, do you think any woman say within 5000
miles of the US will allow herself to be treated like this?
Nope. Thats why brood sizes have decreased. Also do you like
eating rice and beans and chicken heads and animal entrails,
do you have to wait 25 years to make a drink from your blue
agave. Is a great meal something that happens once a year when
you kill the family pig and carefully remove the fat along the
intestines to make cooking oil out of. Is that pig your meat
supply for the whole winter. Or do you prefer sirloin strip,
and poached eggs served with a california wine that you paid
18$ a bottle for. Sipping it while you watch your HDTV from
the confort of your leather sofa on you imported Kashmerian
rug made by children forced into labor by their parents and
child theifs. While you are sitting you are munching on greasy
potatoe chips, not worrying about the LDL floating around in
your blood cause you have expensive health insurance and a
good cardiac specialist. And your also sipping on that beer
you buy in the 12 pack which you buy by the truck loads from
your favorite grocery wharehouse (which you ahve a membership
card) so you can by everything your greatgrandma made from
scratch. Now you really don't want kids flipping the channels,
eating your artificially flavored machine made danish and
spilling your computer made 'god only knows what they put into
it beer' do you. Of course not. At some point 6 billion people
create a demand for kids that matches the supply of resources.
Its only natural the fertility subsides to match this. We
could make kids to do the work the mesicanos and other
immigrants do but we don't really want to for the obvious
reason that we can have sex without making kids, which are
alot of work. Now as for Guahalora, I'm sure she pop out a
couple for you, but once she realizes that she can kick back
and enjoy life in america, you gonna be seeing a pill box next
to the dresser and if you want more kids you better come forth
with a fancy sports car or an extra room for her mamma. Then
you gonna feel the grip for your situation. A woman has to be
pretty hollow between the ears now a days not to realize that
there is no urgancy in hyperfertility.

>We're also selecting for vertically transmitted cultural
>traits (notably religion) which encourage large families,
>along with any genetic traits which make possessors more
>susceptible to them.

But that religion is disequilibrium with the decline of the
pre-industrial farm. As farmlife has declined and
industrialization has taken over, religious values pertaining
to sexuality have abated. To get the kind of fertility rates
once observed in most of the world, there would need to be a
catastrophic event in which a majority of the worlds
populations dies, in which the environment recovers rapidly
and globally and in which humans retain the ability to move
around at liberty. Then you will see a good blip. Where are
people going to breed into now-a-days.

Philip <pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu

[Firstjois]

"Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3eceb150.6571257@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
: On 23 May 2002 02:36:45 GMT, curtadams@aol.com (CurtAdams)
: wrote: [snip]

: Raising kids in modern society is expensive and
: debilitating. The modality of selection is financial in a
: way, can you afford to have a wife willing to spend at least
: a few hours (or she you) at home raising 2 or more offsping.
: Carreer oriented people cannot, males frequently wait later,
: they can afford to but females cannot. In crowded Japan
: males are now marrying in the 35 to 40 yo range to wives in
: the 28-30 year old range because of the financial
: limitations of both trying to own a home and raise kids.
[snip big rant]
:
: Philip <pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu>

And this is a paleo/anthro topic because? For a guy who says
he doesn't want to go off topic you certainly drag your share
of cats and dogs in here. Again, this would be a grand topic
for "Great Debates" in www.straightdope.com. Any kind of rant
is welcomed there..

Jois

[Philip Dei]

On Thu, 23 May 2002 15:52:16 GMT, "firstjois"
<firstjoisyikes@hotmail.com> wrote:

>And this is a paleo/anthro topic because?

Not paleo but certainly anthro. The point is has evolution
changed. He is arguing yes, that some group is making lots of
babies because X, Y, Z. I am arguing that if you take any
person and place them in the context of post industrial age
societies they will attenuate the number of offspring they
produce because the selection is universal not specifically
for one group. I can extend this analogy for gorillas and
chimps and other animals, that when brought to urban zoos
suddenly loose fertility. Why is that, you think it may have
to do with the stresses of modern life.

>For a guy who says he doesn't want to go off topic you
>certainly drag your share of cats and dogs in here.

How about Giant Pandas?

Philip [pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu]
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnthro

[Bob Keeter]

in article
Qe8H8.99046$e66.9055552@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com, firstjois
at firstjoisyikes@hotmail.com wrote on 5/23/02 10:52 AM:

>
> "Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> message news:3eceb150.6571257@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> : On 23 May 2002 02:36:45 GMT, curtadams@aol.com (CurtAdams)
> : wrote: [snip]
>
> : Raising kids in modern society is expensive and
> : debilitating. The modality of selection is financial in a
> : way, can you afford to have a wife willing to spend at
> : least a few hours (or she you) at home raising 2 or more
> : offsping. Carreer oriented people cannot, males frequently
> : wait later, they can afford to but females cannot. In
> : crowded Japan males are now marrying in the 35 to 40 yo
> : range to wives in the 28-30 year old range because of the
> : financial limitations of both trying to own a home and
> : raise kids.
> [snip big rant]
> :
> : Philip <pdeitik at bcm.tmc.edu>
>
> And this is a paleo/anthro topic because? For a guy who says
> he doesn't want to go off topic you certainly drag your
> share of cats and dogs in here. Again, this would be a grand
> topic for "Great Debates" in www.straightdope.com. Any kind
> of rant is welcomed there..
>
> Jois
>

Now, now. Dont get all upset at him else you get to join the
party in his "outhouse" with the rest of us!. . . . after all
didnt you KNOW. . . .those "rules" only apply to mere
mortals! ;-))))

Regards bk

--
In all of the right places,
. . . . . my name is Mudd!